Hacking Xecuter SX FAQ - Finally!

[kamesenin888]

You can admit to pirating copyrighted games on the internet

I'll stick to saying I'm running backups of things I own

If you don't get it, then you're slow

well if you backup something you own its still copyright infringement, but suit yourself, I am a pirate, even though I dont pirate for profit, I dont care to admit it

 

[Quicksilver88]

There is no Fusee Gelee coming with SX Pro. But I guess what you're asking is whether you can run any payload you want with that dongle and I'm pretty sure you will be able to. I assume you can just copy the payload you want onto that dongle.

You know these mod groups though. I expect the dongle to be drm and the payload to be written thru a pc app or maybe a web app. So while possible it may be locked. I say who cares. Either TeamX will inovate somethings like they did with first backup loader/cart emulation or they will rip off open scene’s work and incorporate. If you use thier offering its gonna have everything atmosphere does and more would be my guess.

 

[Xplic1T]

The fact that I dont have to use my PC and can autorcm may be enough for me ... i dont expect the OS to get cracked right away either ... this is just like true blue on the ps3 days.

 

[Soluble]

You know these mod groups though. I expect the dongle to be drm and the payload to be written thru a pc app or maybe a web app. So while possible it may be locked. I say who cares. Either TeamX will inovate somethings like they did with first backup loader/cart emulation or they will rip off open scene’s work and incorporate. If you use thier offering its gonna have everything atmosphere does and more would be my guess.

It will definitely have every feature atmosphere has. There's no reason for them not to add features from atmosphere people want. The big question will be what can they do that atmosphere can't!

 

[scary_dog]

I don't know if it's been answered before but I wanted to know if SX-OS is just a software license and will be delivered via email? There won't be any physical shipping right?

 

[jakkal]

I don't know if it's been answered before but I wanted to know if SX-OS is just a software license and will be delivered via email? There won't be any physical shipping right?

It's literally in the first post
How did.you miss it?

 

[Draxzelex]

After rereading the first post, I noticed a rhetorical question amongst the unanswered questions quote.

Q: AutoRCM works at 5.0? Really?

AutoRCM works on all firmwares because all Switches are designed to boot into RCM once it no can no longer boot into the NAND. I'm assuming this became a question due to the new support for the Mariko Switches found in firmware 5.0. But those can technically also boot AutoRCM as well since that's what is being patched out in those consoles. The dongle will become a paperweight as the bootrom will be patched to no longer allow sending payloads via the USB-C port on the Switch when it is in RCM.

 

[scary_dog]

It's literally in the first post
How did.you miss it?

• Q: How will SX OS work?
  A: The SX OS boot file and licenses can soon be retrieved from our easy to use website that will launch shortly. Simply follow instructions and you will be set up in a few minutes.

I know this but I don't know how are they going to validate the user because many preorder from different sites. How are these delivered for sx-os only? They have not mentioned email validation anywhere. Just that you can retrieve licenses. How will this work without their drm'd dongle?

 

[Quantumcat]

the "end user" is not permitted to make a "back up" copy.

If you read the article from Nintendo you'll see that they only proscribe downloading copies, not making them from your own game.

 

[Wiiunator]

If you read the article from Nintendo you'll see that they only proscribe downloading copies, not making them from your own game.

There has been a fair amount of disinformation about this, so I just wanted to clarify that it doesn't matter if you bought the game, the game developer owns the copyright, you only get a individual license to use the game, the only thing you "own" is the cartridge itself if you bought a physical copy of the game. According to copyright law you do not have the right to duplicate or modify the game in anyway shape or form unless you have the written consent from the rightful copyright owner.

 

[Quantumcat]

There has been a fair amount of disinformation about this, so I just wanted to clarify that it doesn't matter if you bought the game, the game developer owns the copyright, you only get a individual license to use the game, the only thing you "own" is the cartridge itself if you bought a physical copy of the game. According to copyright law you do not have the right to duplicate or modify the game in anyway shape or form unless you have the written consent from the rightful copyright owner.

There are different copyright laws in different countries. If you read the article by Nintendo you'll see they don't have a problem with you copying your own games, but they have a problem with you downloading them.

 

[notimp]

There has been a fair amount of disinformation about this, so I just wanted to clarify that it doesn't matter if you bought the game, the game developer owns the copyright, you only get a individual license to use the game, the only thing you "own" is the cartridge itself if you bought a physical copy of the game. According to copyright law you do not have the right to duplicate or modify the game in anyway shape or form unless you have the written consent from the rightful copyright owner.

Afair thats certainly not true for most european countries. We dont allow "shrinkwrap" contracts to be set up ("you agree to a license agreement by removing shrinkwrap"), and we usually need the buyer to be aware what he buys at the point of purchase (so the contract must be readable/established there).

As thats not the case - we own the software. (With software downloads its different, there we are made to "sign" an agreement prior to purchase. Just as US users.)

The content industry lobbied in another backdoor illegality clause though - and that is, that you are only allowed to make copies of your own software "if you are not breaking copy protection". Which sounds so much like a scheme to circumvent standing law on part of the industry - because it is. Almost no commercial software gets delivered today without some form of DRM on it (shake fist at TX), at which point "circumventing it" becomes illegal.

But. No one can prove that you are doing it - so there are no litigation cases there.

Furthermore, we in the west live in juristictions, where everyone has the right of a fair trial. So there is a concept of - when too many people are doing something, and its considered a "minor offense" (not part of criminal law, comparatively low punitive sentences), courts tent to dismiss those cases and raise the bar of entry to remain functional (Think 1000s of copyright protection infringement cases - with Nintendo having to prove without a reasonable doubt ("It whaz my cat who dunnit!"), that you where the one, that... - that would clog up the juditial system). So in fact "copyprotection infringement cases" are not litigated. Because of their number, because of low chances to prove who did it, because of the low priority nature of that crime in the courts eye.

Its even the same with "illegal downloads" which has become a thing in most european legislatures as well - where, when no one stores the IPs... Illegal on paper, but cant be litigated.

With torrents it was different, because you were distributing copies as well (which is a more severe crime), and broadcasting your IP, so a grey industry developed, where unreputable laywers would load up torrents (not download), connect to peers, gather their IP addresses, go to ISPs, demand the Name and address of the account holder, and then send out "give us money, sign this oath - or we will sue you" extortion letters to the account holders. They (unreputable laywers) then went to the content industry and made "we will make you money" deals with them - to be able to go after their "audiences" in their name.

For the most part the content industry acknowledges, that suing thousands of their users - isnt a great idea, because the PR fallout would be tremendous. So they create "value add" (free monthly games, online play, ...) - to then take away from you (BANNED), if they catch you. And thats it. Its still a good way to do it though - if you look at the PS Online premium model.

You get "free" games now - if you stay on the most current firmware (harder to pirate), with easy downloads and good download speed, while paying a "fee" thats low, but still makes some economical sense to us and our partners - you'll loose access to those games, and future releases - once we ban you.

Thats actually a pretty great piracy mitigation strategy. (Lower piracy numbers over the long term. Which means those people might pay more for current games - so the industry can be happy, even if they might not make big bucks on the "free" titles.)

Of course Nintendo hasn't understood that and sees it as devaluing its assets.

That all said. Piracy still is illegal in most western countries. Copying protected games still is illegal in most western countries. Downloading pirated games is still illegal in most western countries. (Fun story - btw. the content industry just recently lobbied this in in Europe, so now - if "a reasonably educated person (legal speak for IQ of at least 80) can see" that an online portal is not "legit", downloading from there becomes an illegal act - which is so far removed from our actual legal principal ("in dubio pro reo", burden of proof an the side of the accuser) - that this must have cost tremendous bribes eh.. lobbying efforts, to get established.)

Oh and US citizens are effed, as we've found out, because they have no consumer protection rights left anymore. As we've found out through extensive discussions. (They can be pressed into contracts they dont even have to be able to read...) But then they can sue companies for millions in return in big collective lawsuits, if they dont write out EVERY SINGLE RIGHT the user might have had, in their product contracts. Which mostly makes lawyers money. (Self perpetuating scheme. ) Europeans usually cant sue "collectively".

Which is an issue with internet economy cases (Facebook, google, ...) - as we have ZERO protection against data abuse there (signed contract prior), thanks to our US megacorp friends. (Shortened too much as an argument, but in essence - true.)

 

[Wiiunator]

Afair thats certainly not true for most european countries. We dont allow "shrinkwrap" contracts to be set up ("you agree to a license agreement by removing shrinkwrap"), and we usually need the buyer to be aware what he buys at the point of purchase (so the contract must be readable/established there).

As thats not the case - we own the software. (With software downloads its different, there we are made to "sign" an agreement prior to purchase. Just as US users.)

The content industry lobbied in another backdoor illegality clause though - and that is, that you are only allowed to make copies of your own games "if you are not breaking copy protection". Which sounds so much like a scheme to circumvent standing law on part of the industry - because it is. Almost no commercial software gets delivered today without some form of DRM on it (shake fist at TX), at which point "circumventing it" becomes illegal.

But. No one can prove that you are doing it - so there are no litigation cases there.

Furthermore, we in the west live in juristictions, where everyone has the right of a fair trial. So there is a concept of - when too many people are doing something, and its considered a "minor offense" (not part of criminal law, comparatively low punitive sentences), courts tent to dismiss those cases and raise the bar of entry to remain functional (Think 1000s of copyright protection infringement cases - with Nintendo having to prove without a reasonable doubt ("It whaz my cat who dunnit!"), that you where the one, that... - that would clock up the juditial system). So in fact "copyprotection infringement cases" are not litigated. Because of their number, because of low chances to prove who did it, because of the low priority nature of that crime in the courts eye.

Its even the same with "illegal downloads" which has become a thing in most european legislatures as well - where, when no one stores the IPs... Illegal on paper, but cant be litigated.

With torrents it was different, because you were distributing copies as well (which is a more severe crime), and broadcasting your IP, so a grey industry developed, where unreputable laywers would load up torrents (not download), connect to peers, gather their IP addresses, go to ISPs, demand the Name and address of the account holder, and then send out "give us money, sign this oath - or we will sue you" extortion letters to the account holders. They then went to the content industry and made "we will make you money" deals with them - to be able to go after their "audiences" in their name.

For the most part the content industry acknowledges, that suing thousands of their users - isnt a great idea, because the PR fallout would be tremendous. So they create "value add" (free monthly games, online play, ...) - to then take away from you (BANNED), if they catch you. And thats it. Its still a good way to do it though - if you look at the PS Online premium model.

You get "free" games now - if you stay on the most current firmware (harder to pirate), with easy downloads and good download speed, while paying a "fee" thats low, but still makes some economical sense to us and our partners - you'll loose access to those games, and future releases - once we ban you.

Thats actually a pretty great piracy mitigation strategy. (Lower piracy numbers over the long term. Which means those people might pay more for current games - so the industry can be happy, even if they might not make big bucks on the "free" titles.)

Of course Nintendo hasn't understood that and sees it as devaluing its assets.

That all said. Piracy still is illegal in most western countries. Copying games still is illegal in most western countries. Downloading pirated games is still illegal in most western countries. (Fun story - btw. the content industry just recently lobbied this in in Europe, so now - if "a reasonably educated person (legal speak for IQ of at least 80) can see" that an online portal is not "legit", downloading from there becomes an illegal act - which is so far removed from our actual legal principal ("in dubio pro reo", burden of proof an the side of the accuser) - that this must have cost tremendous bribes eh.. lobbying efforts, to get established.)

Oh and US citizens are effed, as we've found out, because they have no consumer protection rights left anymore. As we've found out through extensive discussions. (They can be pressed into contracts they dont even have to be able to read...) But then they can sue companies for millions in return in big collective lawsuits, if they dont write out EVERY SINGLE RIGHT the user might have had, in their product contracts. Which mostly makes lawyers money. (Self propetuating scheme. ) Europeans usually cant sue "collectively".

Which is an issue with internet economy cases (Facebook, google, ...) - as we have ZERO protection against data abuse their, thanks to our US megacorp friends. (Shortened too much as an argument, but in essence - true.)

Thanks for the detailed write up. It certainly is a very convoluted issue from a law point of view.

I come from the music industry, and duplication right are only allowed if you are the copyright owner. There is actually a royalty called “mechanicals” which pays a fee per duplicate to the copyright owner... of course music is being pirated and duplicated left right and center and the streaming medium now means you don’t really make much money selling your music and if you are not touring or writing music for broadcast you are pretty much screwed.

I was under the impression that software would have the same sort of duplication protection under copyright law. You are right though, in reality chasing every infringement and suing for it is economically not viable so if you are a content creator and you sell your product you just have to accept that a small portion of the population will just not pay for it.

I wonder what the consequences of that are going to in the long run. In the music industry it translated to extremely reduced budgets, no risk taking, increase level of control from the studios over the content creator and complete monetary devaluation of the content creator work. Label still makes money but the content creator even less than before. As we move toward a digital only distribution system for games, there might be more way to improve this somehow by making games more affordable and accessible to a larger part of the population so pirating games is not that appealing. There is just no fighting this but there are way of making better for both consumers and content creators.

 

[notimp]

Royalty schemes might be different from legal schemes (concepts), they are basically contracts on what you get paid for..

Also "duplication" in our (european union) instance (if no DRM circumvention) is only allowed for specific purposes (personal copy - for safekeeping usually, maybe ease of access or ease of use) - so under no circumstances are you allowed to sell a copy, or to give one to a friend... But then, the litigation usually comes in at the "selling copies for commercial purposes" step

(and would have even done so in the bittorrent case, if it hadn't turned out to be a lucrative business model for some lawyers to threaten pirates (they werent "staffed" to sue all of them, but they were staffed to threaten and take the extortion money.))

, and not prior. So the copyright holder is the only one permitted to make copies for commercial (the selling of..) purposes. In that sense you are correct.

Also - this may vastly vary from region to region. But there are _big_ "economic unions" that usually enforce the same laws, so companies do not have to pay for "experts" everytime they want to start selling to a new region, and then undergo that regions cert processes, and so on - that can be seen as "the west" (simplification). Other regional trade unions exist as well of course.

If you look at china for example - there are "top three" companies in the online music streaming business, that allow users in the "free" tier, to download and stream copies (mp3 192kb, no DRM) of entire major label music albums for free. No number limit. Their monetization then is done over "you pay for lossless quality" - and of course, advertising/market making.

So if you have ever seen that, your concept of whats moral, and what is not - will have changed.

Basically, western labels see that as "market making", and are willing to flood their market with free copies for free, so later on, they may be able to cash in reputation/recognition benefits. And get some ad money. (The number of users paying for the "lossless tier" is very small.)

 

[TotalInsanity4]

well if you backup something you own its still copyright infringement, but suit yourself, I am a pirate, even though I dont pirate for profit, I dont care to admit it

It's not, actually, so long as you don't distribute said backup beyond your immediate family and YOU aren't the one that's developing programs used to rip content (a technicality, but it's not the copying that's illegal, it's the DRM circumvention)

In fact, a case could probably be made that ripping content straight from the console falls under a loophole, since there is no copy protection that's being circumvented so long as you're loading it from the console. ESPECIALLY in the case of the Switch, where "hacking" it consists entirely of utilising a feature that Nintendo used for recovery purposes

 

[Wiiunator]

Royalty schemes might be different from legal schemes (concepts), they are basically contracts on what you get paid for..

Also "duplication" in our (european union) instance (if no DRM circumvention) is only allowed for specific purposes (personal copy - for safekeeping usually, maybe ease of access or ease of use) - so under no circumstances are you allowed to sell a copy, or to give one to a friend... But then, the litigation usually comes in at the "selling copies for commercial purposes" step

(and would have even done so in the bittorrent case, if it hadn't turned out to be a lucrative business model for some lawyers to threaten pirates (they werent "staffed" to sue all of them, but they were staffed to threaten and take the extortion money.))

, and not prior. So the copyright holder is the only one permitted to make copies for commercial (the selling of..) purposes. In that sense you are correct.

Also - this may vastly vary from region to region. But there are _big_ "economic unions" that usually enforce the same laws, so companies do not have to pay for "experts" everytime they want to start selling to a new region, and then undergo that regions cert processes, and so on - that can be seen as "the west" (simplification). Other regional trade unions exist as well of course.

If you look at china for example - there are "top three" companies in the online music streaming business, that allow users in the "free" tier, to download and stream copies (mp3 192kb, no DRM) of entire major label music albums for free. No number limit. Their monetization then is done over "you pay for lossless quality" - and of course, advertising/market making.

So if you have ever seen that, your concept of whats moral, and what is not - will have changed.

Basically, western labels see that as "market making", and are willing to flood their market with free copies for free, so later on, they may be able to cash in reputation/recognition benefits. And get some ad money. (The number of users paying for the "lossless tier" is very small.)

Oh yeah I'm well aware of the behaviour of streaming companies and their income streams, even though I don't agree with label giving away entire catalogue for free in order to receive payment from advertiser without paying the content creator their due in the right proportion, at the end of the day you either adapt or you do another job. These days I only rely on my upfront fee for creating content, everything is else is bonus. In any creative industry it is all about the survival of the keenest! On another note, despite the volatility I see Blockchain technology and smart contract being a game changer in regards to the way we purchase, own and transfer ownership of digital assets, especially in the gaming industry. Maybe that is the way forward in creating a more stable and transparent internet economy for all.

 

[notimp]

With the chinese streaming giants (publicly traded companies), you literally have a "download the album" button in their apps. Its - something. I can't stress that enough. And the download will be a 192kb mp3 with no drm (but with perfectly groomed metadata, covers, ...). For you as a "free tier" user.

And this is how the major labels are grooming that market: Taylor Swift - you now can not download - only stream. Because she's popular there as well. Unless you pay 3 USD a month, then you can download her albums as well. In up to lossless quality.

Makes you think about the value of goods.. Doesnt it.. (Most western major labels are not that popular in the chinese music market, hence market making logic applies. )

 

[smf]

I know this but I don't know how are they going to validate the user because many preorder from different sites. How are these delivered for sx-os only? They have not mentioned email validation anywhere. Just that you can retrieve licenses. How will this work without their drm'd dongle?

I'm guessing you give them your switch serial number and they encode the SX OS so it will only run on your switch. It's probably hackable, but they might have put enough protection in to make it harder to crack.

 

[Wiiunator]

With the chinese streaming giants (openly traded companies), you literally have a "download the album" button in their apps. Its - something. I can't stress that enough. And the download will be a 192kb mp3 with no drm (but with perectly groomed metadata, covers, ...).

yeah that is pretty messed up, but again Chinese copyright law hasn't been know to care about the right of the content creator... and western companies are willingly giving away content as long as they make money out of it.

 

[SpaceJump]

Is there anything known if we will be able to load homebrew payloads (aka Hekate, Atmosphere) with Team X's USB-Dongle?